[geocentrism] Re: Last call RB2 complete

Dear Mike,

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Mike
> > Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 5:44 PM
> > To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Last call
> >
> >
> > Dear Robert,
> >
> > >>Whether you believe relativity or not is beside the point.  The theory
> > >>is internally consistent and agrees with observation so their are no
> > >>paradoxes.
> >  >
> > >  consistency ?
> > >
> > >  1. Distance through Space is determined by NOTHING (Aristotle's
> > > objection....still valid)
> >
> > Distance is perfectly well defined for a given frame of reference, one
> > meter is how far a one meter rule extends when stationary in
> that frame.
> >    The transformation of distance from one frame to another is also
> > pertectly well defined.
>
RB:How do you extend a meter stick through NOTHING? Nothing is
   the absence of existence - nihil, non-being, non esse - not the
   physical vacuum, not empty space .... not anything, just NOTHING.
   Don't try to picture nothing, because the sense faculties can
   only perceive reality, and NOTHING has no reality.  Don't try to
   use a beam from a laser gauge to measure distance in it, because
   if light (or any matter) were present inside nothing, it couldn't
   be nothing.

 So Shakespeare was right; It's possible to have "Much ado about nothing".

> >
> > >  2. Electric and magnetic waves and potentials are supported
> by NOTHING.
> >
> > Do you mean because there's no aether?  I fail to see what part of
> > relativity this contradicts.
>
RB:  The luminiferous aether is that substrate of space which supports
 static and varying E and B varying potentials - EM waves
 SR says these EM waves are not supported by anything.
 So, SR says that electric and magnetic waves and potentials are
 supported by NOTHING
>
> >
> > >  3. The speed of light is determined by NOTHING.
> >
> > I thought the speed of light was about 299,792,458 m/s in every
> inertial
> >   (or locally inertial) frame of reference as determined by
> > experimentation.  Where's the contradiction?
>
RB:  1) 1960s  speed of light forever constant   contradicts Genesis ,
 each year we drift further from the true  divinely ordained  clock of the
cosmic motion.
  2) speed of light constant?
www.ldolphin.org/constc.shtml -
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/10/991005114024.htm
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/constant_changing_01081
5.html
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/faster_than_c_000719.ht
ml

> > >  4. The principle of vector addition for velocities is denied.
> >
> > Do you mean because normal vector addition is just an
> approximation that
> > gets more out the bigger the velocities?  Again, where's the
> > contradiction?

With intuition and experience. Galilean relativity uses normal addition,
and conforms to the reality of measurement.  Occam's razor prefers common
sense to the nonsensical.

> >
> > >  5. Twin paradox: A is older and younger than B. Denies the trichotomy
> > > theorem of inequalities
> >
> > Fancy sounding way of saying you don't understand the twin
> paradox.  The
> > one that turns around is younger, where's the contradiction?

In this same posting below  RB wrote:
There is no symmetry breaking - this argument was abandoned long ago.
Let two space travelers depart in opposite directions from earth with
identical histories of motion for speed, acceleration and deceleration.
Their trips will be symmetric in Minkowski space, since their world lines
will be mirror images of each other within the light cone that has Earth as
the origin, at t =0.
  Yet the contradiction remains, with perfect trip symmetry.......
  A returns older than B   and A returns younger than B

> >
> > >  6. Space has two geometries, one for matter, the other for photons.
> >
> > Do you mean that they are different frames of reference?
> >

Just look at a Minkowski diagram: what obvious geometrical difference is
there between light and particle geodesics?


> > >  7. Space is curved near large objects(GR) but empty everywhere(SR).
> >
> > Are you saying that there needs to be stuff in space for there to be
> > curvature?  Are you happy with the idea of a straight line in a vacuum?
> >

Can nothing curve space? How would space know where to curve , and how much?
If 'vacuum' means space with properties that enable and influence light
paths and speed, then this is what everyone else calls 'aether'.


> > > agrees with observation ?
> > > So do many variants of aether theory and Galilean relativity.
> >
> > Can you name one observation of the aether other than the
> > Michel-Morleyson experiment and one alternative theory to relativity
> > that equally agrees with observation.
> >

Just one? I choose not to do so.

> > >>The "paradoxes" in relativity are not really paradoxes
> > >
> > > Agreed. A paradox is an apparent contradiction; Einstein's
> > relativity is a
> > > true contradiction.
> >
> > Well, I agree that paradox is more usually used to to mean something
> > that is an apparent contradiction despite it not being so, but
> then they
> > are paradoxes after all :)  But more importantly, where are the
> > contradictions in relavity?
> >

See items 1 to 7 in the original posting

> > >>There are several ways to reolve the twin paradox (all essentially the
> > >>same though) but it requires an understanding of the maths if you want
> > >>to be absolutely sure there is no paradox.  The simple answer is that
> > >>one of the twins turns around and thus feels accelaration while the
> > >>other doesn't.  This is where the symmetry (and supposed paradox)
> > >>is broken.
> > >
> > > There is no symmetry breaking - this argument was abandoned long ago.
> >
> > Really?  By whom?  Can you back that up?

By RB:  Why is who supports this more important than its truth value? Will
we vote to see if it's valid reasoning, or can we decide for ourselves?

> >
> > > Let two space travelers depart in opposite directions from earth with
> > > identical histories of motion for speed, acceleration and
> deceleration.
> > > Their trips will be symmetric in Minkowski space, since their
> > world lines
> > > will be mirror images of each other within the light cone that
> > has Earth as
> > > the origin, at t =0.
> > >   Yet the contradiction remains, with perfect trip symmetry.......
> > >   A returns older than B   and A returns younger than B
> >
> > No, if they experience identical forces they will age the same amount.
> > I think (but check this out on BA, I'm just figuring it out in my head
> > as I type) that while they are moving away from each other they will
> > both see each other's clcck run slow, then when they both turn around
> > they will both see each other's clock leap forward ahead of their own
> > (or go very quickly while they turn around if you like) then while
> > they're approaching each other they will see (or rather deduce, I'm
> > ignoring doppler effects) each other's clock run slow again until they
> > come back into agrement when they meet :)
> >
One: there is no provision in SR to see a clock 'leap forward' into the
future! A clock in relative motion to an observer can only be seen to
dilate, to slow down, the rate dependent on the instantaneous speed. So each
will see the other age less for the whole trip.

Two: if a third twin is added - a triplet C who stays behind on earth, then
each one will agree that the other 2 are younger!

One of the demonic results of accepting relativity is the havoc it plays
with logic, a vital component of our God-given reasoning. The impossible
becomes the normal, and this influences our moral values, too, as Biblical
errancy is also adopted as normal.

> > > I notice that Worzel raised this symmetry issue on BA, and
> > their response
> > > was to rattle off the postulates of relativity.  Ignoratio
> > elenchi.   "You
> > > can run, but you can not hide...."
> >
> > You didn't look very hard then, I have had some excellent answers on
> > there that have really helped me.  Because some of them *do* understand
> > it rather than just know how to rattle off the postulates and theorems
> > they can see where one's misconceptions are coming from - books can
> > never do that.  Care to give a link to the post you're talking about?
> >

Look up 'Worzel' and 'twin'; then link me to where they answered the exact
question that Worzel posed.


> > > I'm abashed that some GC believers are non-Machian.
> > > How do you explain Gen 1:14-19 and the Foucault pendulum, the
> [alleged]
> > > equatorial bulge, the reduction in g acceleration at the
> > equator, etc. ? And
> > > all the other rotational motion 'disproofs' that the HC/AC folks cite?
> > >
> > > Consider a humble washing machine, with a center
> agitator(rotor) and the
> > > laundry container(tub).
> > > Whether the rotor spins and tub is stationary, or vice versa,
> > the laundry
> > > always is thrown away from the center ==> centrifugal inertial
> > forces depend
> > > only on relative rotational motion.
> >
> > Well that's just not true is it.  If you postulate that inertia comes
> > from resistance to movement against the mass of the universe then that
> > is one thing.  But I can certainly tell whether it is me, or the view
> > out of my window which is spinning because I either feel dizzy
> or I don't.

Speaking of dizzy, if I am on a rotating earth, spinning at least 500 mph,
why don't I feel dizzy, if I use subjective testing as above?

> >
> > > In the universe, opposed to the expansion forces of Mach are
> the gravity
> > > forces, which can be simulated by tilting the tub vertically (a
> > front end
> > > loader in the colonies). Only the top of the tub demos the
> > universe, because
> > > only there is the laundry's weight pointing in toward the
> > agitator. For a GC
> > > simulation, the tub and water(firmament)is spinning and the
> > rotor(Earth)is
> > > not. When the tub slows down the laundry separates from the top
> > of the tub
> > > and describes an arc between tub and rotor. This shows an orbit
> > is produced
> > > when gravity balances Machian forces.
> >
> > I've never heard of the expansion forces of Mach.  Is this the 5th
> > fundimental force?  You talk about it alongside gravity as if the two
> > are equally well established and understood.

A GC term for the universal equivalent of the Newtonian pseudo-force - the
centrifugal force on objests in relative motion.

> >
> > > We abstract from the washing machine and observation of the
> > heavens three
> > > principles of the firmamental rotation.
> > > 1> the inertial acceleration is dependent on relative motion only.
> > > 2> the inertial acceleration is always radial outward.
> > > 3> the inertial acceleration increases with distance from earth.
> >
> > Ok, I think I see what you're saying now.  Does this explain why
> > geostationary satallites don't fall from the sky?  If so, why does the
> > moon not fly away seeing as how its further away?
> >

As described in a prior post:
The satellite - no longer a geostat - will move to a new value of d for
which the new velocity will satisfy  Ag = Af + Ak.
This holds for the Moon as well - any satellite not self-propelled.

> > >>However, the "twins paradox" is a contradiction within Special
> > >>Relativity. Special Relativity does not deal with acceleration, which
> > >> is handled by General Relativity. SR and GR are incompatible.
> > >
> > > A minor point. SR can and does deal with acceleration by using
> > calculus to
> > > create a sequence of infinitesimal inertial frames that allow
> the direct
> > > calculation of the twin's acceleration. If accelerations were
> > out of the SR
> > > scope, how would Newton's 2nd law be tested in SR?
> >
> > Indeed.  Quite a major point really, because the SR derived equations
> > then become identical to a GR pseudo gravity well.  I think this may
> > have led Einstein to the equivalence principle.
> >

Most pop sci histories say this was the result of a Gedanken experiment with
a elevator.

> > Regards,
> > Mike.
> >
> >
> >
> >


Other related posts: